get_institutional_holders

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the name: response rows include report_quarter and filed_at, omitting quarter returns the latest available data, and historical tickers are resolved. It does not mention limit behavior or pagination, but for a read-only lookup this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is tightly written in four sentences, leading with the core purpose and output, then efficiently covering parameter details with concrete examples in an 'Args:' section. No wasted words or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema is present, so return values are covered there. The description sufficiently covers input formats, quarter default, and output row fields. Minor omissions like limit behavior and explicit differentiation from fund-holding tools prevent a perfect score, but overall it is complete for a focused lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It thoroughly explains the required ticker parameter (accepting CIK, stripped CIK, and historical ticker) and quarter semantics, but it does not mention the limit parameter at all, leaving it to the schema default of 20. This is a noticeable gap in an otherwise useful parameter explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get which institutional funds hold a company's stock.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_fund_holdings by focusing on company stockholders rather than fund holdings, and lists output fields (shares held, market value, discretion type).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on how to specify the company, including accepted formats like ticker, CIK, and historical ticker, and explains the quarter parameter's behavior when omitted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.